ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2019
Endoscopy in 2017: a national survey of practice in the UK.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula during sedated digestive endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2022Pooled it
- Pharmacokinetics of oral mannitol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.Clinical and translational science · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy and determinants of success in a structured ERCP training program: a retrospective cohort study from a national training center in China.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Is it feasible for surgical trainees to acquire JAG endoscopy accreditation by CCT? National online survey of UK trainees.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Development of a national root cause analysis system for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Article
- Direct application of non-thermal plasma technology for the elimination of biofilm from endoscope channels.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Consensus on Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Key Performance Indicators to Reduce Post Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Non-invasive breath testing to detect colorectal cancer: protocol for a multicentre, case-control development and validation study (COBRA2 study).BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Streamlining Endoscopy Cleaning: The Impact of a New Detergent on Time and Water Use.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Adenoma Detection and the Endoscopist: Assessing the Effects of Insourcing in UK Endoscopy Services.Cureus · 2025Article
- Multicentre Study of 10,369 Symptomatic Patients Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy, Colonoscopy and CT Colonography.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Endoscopic and Histological Lesions at Upper Endoscopy: A Cross-Sectional, Multicentre Study in Clinical Practice.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Impact of introducing transnasal endoscopy on expanding diagnostic endoscopy services.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Quality Standards in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Can Deep Sedation Influence It?GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Initiatives to increase colonoscopy capacity - is there an impact on polyp detection? A UK National Endoscopy Database analysis.Endoscopy · 2024Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), hosted by the Royal College of Physicians, London, oversees the quality assurance of endoscopy services across the UK. Additional questions focusing on the pressures faced by endoscopy units to meet targets were added to the 2017 annual Global Rating Scale (GRS) return. This provides a unique insight into endoscopy services across all nations of the UK involving the acute and non-acute Nation Health Service sector as well as the independent sector.
methodsAll 508 services who are registered with JAG were asked to complete every field of the survey online in order to submit their completed April 2017 GRS return.
resultsA number of services reported difficulty in meeting national waiting time targets with a national average of only 55% of units meeting urgent cancer wait targets. Many services were insourcing or outsourcing patients to external providers to improve waiting times. Services are striving hard to increase capacity by backfilling lists and working weekends. Data collection was done in most units to reflect productivity but not to look at demand and capacity. Some of the units did not have an agreed capacity plan. The Did Not Attend rates for patients in the bowel cancer screening programme were much lower compared with standard lists.
conclusionThis review highlights the increased pressure endoscopy services are under and the 'just about coping' situation. This is the first published overview of different aspects of UK-wide endoscopy services and the future challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.